Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1691 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-07-31 02:22:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
wrote in message <20030731002230.GE22991@fs.tum.de>:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >...
> > That sounds a tad inelegant to me. Really, I'd prefer to see libstdc++
> > be compiled for i386 ...
> > 
> > ...and IFF those new opcodes bring _that_ much performance, then we
> > should think about another Debian distribution for i686-linux. Up to
> > now, I was really proud of having _one_ distribution that's basically
> > capable of running on all and any machines I own...
> 
> The 486 emlation patch for 386 is the way to still allow 386's to run 
> Debian.

Okay, I'll have a look at it. Where's the 2.6.x version?

> To compile libstdc++ for 486 wasn't a performance question - a
> libstdc++.so.5 compiled for 386 would have meant that C++ binaries
> compiled on Debian wouldn't run on other Linux distributions and vice
> versa [1] (it's a bug in libstdc++ that will AFAIR be fixed in gcc 3.4).

I've got no idea when this version will come up. What's the (Debian)
timeline for a gcc-3.4 based libstdc++ then? I've already tried
gcc-snapshot's libstdc++, but that's libstdc++6, which won't link with
todays applications...

Well, it's not only that. Seen the thread named like "Time loss on
i486"? That'll be some fun, too:)

Itching my head, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
      ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]